Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Picture

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Picture

    What I'm seeing here is a kind of paranoia reminiscent of "the reds are coming, the reds of coming!" of the Cold War era. First off, what was said was that CFI would be more tolerant of family nudity pics; NOT that it would become a digital warehouse of child nudity. Second, there are plenty of other nudist forums that have occasional family nudist pictures, and have had them for years. They have not been shut down, prosecuted or rundown by Interpol, the FBI or various other governmental agencies. Some sites even have probably too many pics of nudist children; it seems that they're still up and running too.
    But I don't delude myself; depictions of family nudism will always be a hot-button issue for some people. They don't want to see it, are afraid of it, and even see it as "evil." Maybe nudist pictures should be altogether banned because, you know, "Big Brother is watching you."

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Picture

      I must thank Sunnysmile for so strongly and quickly reinforcing my arguments.
      Originally posted by sunnysmile_fl View Post
      Times are different these days. Since 1985 we find ourselves faced with a new law that prohibits the photographing and/or publishing of the genitals of a child or anyone under the age of eightteen. That's it. That's the law.
      That is, of course, absolutely false.

      The First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression. The courts have consistently held that simple nudity is not pornography. It is not illegal to take or possess photos of naked children.

      Why then does Sunnyside think so? Why do minimum-wage drugstore photo clerks so often think so?

      Because the freedom is not used with sufficient frequency. Wearing a sword in public isn't illegal, either. People may think it is, because they rarely see it done (I can recall only twice seeing it done, both times by women), but it's not.

      Now, being free to carry a sword is not an important freedom, unless you're a fencer or a bellydancer, and being able to take nude pictures of children may not be, unless you're an artist or a nudist. A wider problem with the encroachment on nude pictures, is that it's used as an excuse for broad eavesdropping and surveillance.

      But eavesdropping are surveillance are to protect us, aren't they? Not really, they're to protect the government. When you are attempting to bring criminals to justice who happen to be policemen and FBI agents, it's a problem having them tapping your phone (and yes, I speak from personal experience).

      Originally posted by sunnysmile_fl View Post
      I in particular don't agree with the ranking order the Law has chosen to place possession of CP in, but I'm not the law. Neither did I write the law, it just is and we have to deal with it.
      I've lived outside of the U.S. for some years, and I am aware things have changed - I was astonished at the number of armed goons at the airport last time I was there.

      But really, do they no longer teach in high school civics classes how laws are made? If you object, you go to the state capitol, or the Federal capitol, and you tell your representatives or Congressmen or Senators. You get others to do so, too. You do what NAC does.

      Originally posted by sunnysmile_fl View Post
      Moreover I'm led to believe that people who do work against what is already written and established as law and continually test the boundaries are on treacherous territory.
      " ...and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

      Indeed, Thomas Jefferson seems to have been familiar with Sunnyside's ilk.

      the potential hazards of exploitation and the illegal sale and redistribution of that picture of a family's little daughter or son. That could be your daughter or son, but mark my words it won't be mine.
      As several people have pointed out in this thread, what hazards? As an example, Daniel Radcliffe, reputed to be England's richest teenager, took a careful look at his future and weighed the risks of spending the rest of his life as The Boy Who Was Harry Potter, and make a career break by taking off his pants on stage. He seems to be fine.

      If someone uses your picture - or even your daughter's picture - to think unclean thoughts, it does you or her no actual harm. A photograph does not in fact capture a fragment of the subject's soul, despite what some primitive tribes or "child protection advocates" may think.

      - Caipora

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Picture

        Capiora, while all of the points you make along this thread are excellent and many are quite valid, we're still preaching to the choir here. It will do no good though, to try and initiate changes in the law as it currently stands because I will tell you right now that no attorney alive today would be willing to risk any expense to petitioning a court to suggest a change in the current laws. The system makes way too much money with it the way it is now and any attempts to petition a court for changee will likely get shot down in an instant.

        There is an organization called SOSEN, and that particular organization constantly fights for the restoration of some rights that wrongfully branded and accused have lost. They do this by continually petitioning State and Federal courts for change that would bring about some new opportunities for the wrongfully accused to re-integrate into Society, so they can get their lives back on-track and keep it that way. SOSEN has been going on for several years now, but so far to not much avail at all, since the judicial system is so hellbebt on proliferating as many money-making and vote-winning cases as possible. I'm telling you the judicial system is one you do not want to get drawn up into because once you're in, there's no gettin' out.

        But in summary, the law states that any image that depicts the exposed genitls or private areas of a child is considered contraband and the mere knowing possession of even one image is a felony in the third or even second degree. It's in the law books, go check it out if you doubt me.

        Meanwhile and in my honest opinion, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that some members of society who argue about what has been writen and established as a State and Federal law concerning CP, and want to challenge that law, are expressing an agenda that dictates they feel they should be entitled to special exemptions from the consequences for the crime.

        Why the heck can't we keep this nice and simple and simply not tread into the area of child pornography, if for nothing else in this world but pure respect for the safety and wellbeing of our children? I don't see any other way around the arguement so why can't we focus on the main point and play by the rules?

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Picture

          Originally posted by sunnysmile_fl View Post
          But in summary, the law states that any image that depicts the exposed genitls or private areas of a child is considered contraband and the mere knowing possession of even one image is a felony in the third or even second degree. It's in the law books, go check it out if you doubt me.
          That is completely wrong. Every few months you hear about a case where some overzealous Wal-Mart photo clerk reports such a photo (baby's first bath, kids running naked through the sprinkler) to the authorities. Sometimes the police & CPS get involved; but the courts always rule in favor of the parents if the photo is non-sexual.

          The Century Project has never been shut down and it features 17 pictures of naked girls under 18. If you are not familiar with it it's a series of 100 female nudes, each one a different age from 1 to 100.

          Every few years there's a case where someone will try to bring suit against a Barns & Nobel or other book store for stocking a Jock Sturges book that features nude children. It usually creates a minor controversy that boosts sales and the book stays on the shelves.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Picture

            I have done a lot of research in this area and simple nudity regardless of age is NOT pornography, therefore not illegal.

            Pictures of nude children are only illegal to have if they fall under the description of the law as being child porn....There are laws governing exactly what is considered Child pornography and what is not.




            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Picture

              No doubt that in cases such as Barnes & Noble and Jock Sturges, those guys have indeed been under scrutiny, but with much loss and much expenditures for the necessary legal representation, those guys skated. At least this time. Same for Elton John when he was brought to face charges for the possession of a large and framed photo that depicted two children, the main one on the photo was clearly legspread and with full view of open genitals. But you know cats like Elton have the financial wherewithall to make pert-near anything of an illegal nature disappear by just paying it away. John's got squillions in cash and assests, so does Jock and you can bet the judicial system loves the big payouts. In some exclusive cases once the pigs have their money they're happy.

              But the average schmo surfing the Internet doesn't have access to that kind of financial resources and/or legal representation and they can never hope for such a victorious outcome in the courts when the primary objective is to proliferate a case and in the name of 'protecting the children.'

              Over in the Polk County, Florida area alone just this year, some fifty or more people were arrested and indicted for possession of CP. Many of those arrested were mere possessors and all they did was find the offending images, thusly getting caught up in the whole mess. What should happen in the case of someone who is merely a possessor? What should happen with a possessor who's already been through the motions of the judicial system for the possession for a mere one or two images, has been put through the system, has done his/her time, has satisfied the court, has not violated probation and is otherwise through with all of the sentencing but the sex offender registration still stands? Why should the punishment for that person in particular need to continue anything beyond the term of the sentencing and why should that person not be able to have his/her criminal record sealed or expunged? Why should a mere possesor be treated worse, much worse than a murderer or a terrorist? That's the part about the whole judicial process that I'm sure you agree is so screwed up but what's the fix for it?

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Picture

                I do not see the use in talking to sunny, he as made up his mind that nothing can be done and just roll over and take it. He is one of the paranoid which/pedo hunters, well not a hunter but supports the hunters. If there is one there are many and all will suffer is not a healthy way of thinking, it is delusional.

                "If they say it is wrong I will support them fully", is sunny's mantra, and will continue to let more and more rights dissapear because "Why fight it?".

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Picture

                  Originally posted by nimrod View Post
                  "If they say it is wrong I will support them fully", is sunny's mantra, and will continue to let more and more rights dissapear because "Why fight it?".

                  I don't think that Sunny fully supports the witch-hunters, he's just convinced that if we have any such pics on the site the witch hunters will send a SWAT team to CFI headquarters to shut it down.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Picture

                    The problem with his comments is that they are misrepresentations of what is legal and what is not. Nudist photos that include children are in themselves are perfectly legal!

                    Now if someone had several pictures of a young person in various poses that would raise a red flag. In fact even some clothed pictures can be considered child porn.

                    That said on the flip side of that, pictures of naturist functions that include children (such as a youth camp or naturist gathering) would be perfectly legal, as long as they were taken with permission of the parent/guardian of those children, and used only in the fashion disclosed at the time of the picture.

                    I am sorry sunnysmile, but you are absolutely incorrect generalizing all nude photos as child porn

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Picture

                      Originally posted by EricNY View Post
                      ...I am sorry sunnysmile, but you are absolutely incorrect generalizing all nude photos as child porn
                      I'm not the one generalizing and once again, I do not write the laws, but everyone of us here is expected to obey the law lest we suffer the consequences.

                      What is considered CP is in the eye of the beholder, namely judges and prosecuters, and the judicial system wants as many cases as they can possibly proliferate, so virtually anything that falls under the category of child nude with genitals exposed could be construed as prosecutable. And if the legal representation for the defendant is insufficient in any way, the defendand is likely to lose the case and be branded.

                      But perhaps we can look at this from a different approach and perhaps an understanding can be found as to why the law is written the way it is and why folks get so upset about the issue. Empathy for the photographed child in question can go a long way in your understanding of what a child is subject to in that instance. Someone's likely to make money off that child and in the name of the unthinkable. Someone may go so far as to identify the child and make an attempt to locate the child for his/her own taking. Just as important, once that image is out there it can be referenced by people the child's future, as when that child grows up and tries to apply for a job. The presence of such an exploitive picture or video can destroy a person's attempt to land and/or keep a job, it can permanently tarnish the person's reputation thereby causing many normal, social engagement opportunities to evaporate or just plain be non-existent because people are aware of the photo or video and they hold the child responsible, though we know that's wrong because the child didn't have any way of saying no to being photographed for exploitation that way. It's not ever the child's fault but in the future the child still gets blamed and accused and even profiled by the general public. Is that fair? Would you want your child to be robbed of a future and a normal life because of what someone else wanted despite the child didn't have any jurisdiction to say no? Put yourself for a moment in the child's shoes, and I suggest this for the sole puropuse of empathy, and try to imagine a future of uncertainty, disappointment and even ostracization because of some haunting thing in the Media about you when you were a child child that no one can seem to make go away. Who on Earth would ever want that for their child?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Picture

                        Originally posted by sunnysmile_fl View Post

                        so virtually anything that falls under the category of child nude with genitals exposed could be construed as prosecutable.

                        Absolutely false!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Picture

                          that may be the nicest pic of all time...no need for a title....bravo.....jlb

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Picture

                            Originally posted by Fitz1980 View Post
                            I don't think that Sunny fully supports the witch-hunters, he's just convinced that if we have any such pics on the site the witch hunters will send a SWAT team to CFI headquarters to shut it down.
                            The "fully supports" comment was about the laws not about the hunters.

                            Just my opinion, but he is here telling everyone not to post any pictures of nude children, then he is at least a victim to the hype and because of that he supports the idea that any nude child picture is porn, which is what the hunters want everyone to believe. If we have nudist saying not to show any photos of nude children that is just more fodder for the pervert pedo hunters that believe that all child nudity is wrong.

                            I do not think that if you are not fighting it you are supporting it, but he is actively telling us to do what the hunters want. He has bought into the paranoia that these fearmongers have sewn into the media and is now repeating some of their lies here.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Picture

                              Everyone here is entitled to express their views in this issue but none of it represents entitlement or special and individual exemptions from what's in black & white at your local courthouse, and there's no room for endless arguement. It's simply law. I have suggested that if you doubt me then just look it up in the books. Changing the wording of the written law within your own mind in order to make provision for certain justifications that may fit your interpretation of the law for your own gain won't help, on the contrary it's gonna do the opposite. Don't read into the law, just read what it says.

                              Further, everyone here in these forums is of course free to express their interpretation of issues in a way of course that is not condescending nor derrogatory toward any other, CFI forums member, but as for the rules of the forums, anything dicey like challenging a law that represents a felonious act, I'd kinda like to think that's not allowed here, we'll let the CFI forums mods answer that one and also make clear what won't be allowed here. I would like to think that all of us members should each play a part in setting the best example and representation of CFI, not only for all members, but also for the general public who can read our forums, not to mention anyone out there appointed by the Authorities to look specifically for questionable activity or the exchanges of potentially dangerous informations that represent a violation of a law. It's foolish for us to push our luck.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Picture

                                Several people have suggested that you should not post nude pictures of children. The main argument is a pedophile might get ahold of it and that would be bad. Others have countered it saying it will not harm the child since the child does not know about it.

                                Other discussions have centered around the legalities of having nude pictures of children on a web site or downloaded on your computer.

                                Another thing you have to consider when posting a nude picture of your child. Someone who knows your child could find the picture can save it on their computer. As your child grows up, the picture can resurface. Classmates could tease them. This could be tramatic.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X